Formerly, International Accounting Standards (IASs) were issued by the IASC from the years 1973 through 2000. Then an International Accounting Standards Board came up that replaced the IASC in 2001. From that time, the IASB has done some amendments to some IASs and there is still a proposition to continue with the amendments to other IASs.
There have been some replacements on some IASs with new International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs), and there has been an adoption and propositions for IFRSs to handle certain new on topics which were not previously on IAS. By use of committees, the IASB and IAS have issued each an interpretation of standards. Financial statements may lack categorization as complying with IFRSs in anticipation of fully compliance with all of the required elements of each suitable standard and each associated interpretation. This was the finale of a reorganization based on the recommendations of the report on recommendations suggesting the Shaping of the IASC in the Future.
Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original “Accounting Dissertation | International Accounting Standards IAS” essay for you
The IASB configuration has the following main features: the IASC Foundation is a self-governing organization having two main arms, the Trustees and the IASB, as well as a Standards Advisory Council and the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee. The IASC Foundation Trustees choose the IASB members, exercise exclusion and elevate the resources required, but the IASB has private responsibility for putting in place IFRS (international accounting standards).
The UK had to adopt the financial standards because these standards set a common base for use in the reporting cases of their financial standards. Being a base and an international organization; the United Kingdom companies would have had to adopt these standards in order to comply with stated international financial reporting standards. Many countries feel that complying internationally might help them recognized in getting international standards that serves them a favour of expressing themselves as internationally recognized companies. This to many of them will create the image that a company that has adopted international standards is a world-class company that can therefore ensure its expansion therefore to other countries overseas
In addition to these suggestions, the International Accounts Service Board has formulated each International Financial Reporting Standard and its corresponding date it takes effect. In the next section, I am going to take explorations on the IFRSs and their recommended effective dates as stipulated by the IASBs.
The International Financial Reporting Standards IFRS 1-First time Adoption of these financial reporting standards that was originally issued in the year 2003 would start to take its effect in the beginning of the next financial period starting on or after first of January 2004. This standard was later amended in relation to its corresponding Standard six on a re vision in 2005 and its effect would have taken place on or after the first of January the following financial year. Another yet revisit on the standard was carried out in May two thousand and eight in relation n to cost of any investment on its first time adoption. It was required to take effect on or at the beginning of the year two thousand and nine. All these applications of the standards welcomed any earlier effective dates with companies willing to adopt these standards.
On the International Financial Reporting Standard number two, that is IFRS Two, there was a first announcement or the first issuance in the year two thousand and four with effective dates given as from or after the beginning of the following year. Later, it was revised in the year two thousand and eight with an amendment in relation to vesting conditions and cancellations and the proposed period of the effective dates were given as from or the period after the beginning of the year two thousand and nine.
On IFRS 3, that is, the principle of business combinations, it was first issued in the year two thousand and four with an effective date set to periods beginning or periods after the thirty first of March of the same year. There was a later revisit to this standard with an amendment done in relation to any acquisition method in the year 2008 and thereafter, effective dates issued from the periods beginning on or after the first of July the same year.
Another Standard that was issued in the year two thousand and four is the Standard on the Insurance Contracts that was classified as IRFS standard number four. The standard was designed to take effect from the beginning of the following year and was later amended in the August of two thousand and five.
Then came the defined number five IFRS standard stating the principle on the non-current assets held for sale and discontinued operations. This standard was clearly stated by the IASB in March of two thousand and four and had to bee effective by the beginning of the year two thousand and five. A later amendment was carried out on this and then was later expected to take effect as from May of two thousand and eight.
The international standard number six was started in the year two thousand and four. This standard provides for the discovery and evaluation of mineral resources. This standard permits a commercial body to develop a bookkeeping policy for examination and evaluation of assets without orientation to the IASs numbers eleven and twelve respectively.
On the other hand, the European Union had endorsed these standards and therefore the U.K companies had little choice but to adopt the IRFS because of this. Any company which forms part of an E-U listed Group had to adopt this transition requiring it to change the financial reporting standards from GAAP to IASB’s IRFS.This is because after the announcement of these standards, the E-U started an endorsement program requiring all companies in its listed group to adapt to these changes.
Also in 2004, there was an enforcement of Accounting standard in Europe by the Committee of European Securities Regulators because it had adopted new standard containing 21 principles which are aimed at developing and implementing a common approach to the enforcement of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) throughout the EU countries.
Any company which offers share options to employees as an employment benefit, a charge is made for share options issued at market value. Under IFRS, a just value must be considered and a charge made for the time from award of the choice to the vesting date. A company that had taken benefit of the transitional provisions of IFRS 2 in reverence of equity-settled awards and had applied IFRS 2 only to equity-settled awards granted after 7 November 2002 that had not been vested on or before the end of December 2004.
The charge previously made relating to UITF 17 (Revised 2003) ‘Employee Share Schemes’ has been overturned, as it is substituted by the IFRS 2 charge. It also forces these companies to calculate their tax based on the estimated tax subtraction on exercise of the options judged against to the bookkeeping charge on grant of the alternative. Under IFRS, income tax relating to items recognised directly in equity is recognised in equity and not in the income statement, resulting in a movement between the tax charge under UK GAAP and equity under IFRS.
From another approach, the IASB offices being located in London doesn’t necessarily mean that this body is or will come up with standards that favour businesses that originate from this locale .The International Accounts Standards Board is an independent body that seeks to regulate the way in which firms register and present their financial records at the end of each financial year. So in an own opinion, the geographical location of this organisation doe not translate to economic favours to companies within its radius, hence the outcry from these companies.
These companies originating from the United Kingdom is business entities whose main purpose is to conduct business and at the end of the financial year realise a profit. Therefore any changes in the ways they are used to that seem to have negative impacts will certainly give the Directors and management boards of these companies nervous times.
The reasons why these companies were actually upset is because the impact these recording standards had on the financial records at the end of a fiscal year were affective. It was accounted that some of the proposals did not offer adequately reliable and fully relevant information to the preferred user of their financial statements. The proposal and their rationale were rather confusing as they seem to separate recognition and measurement for what they are currently known as contingent liabilities and these can not be readily separated in practice.
Also in their current form, it was had to implement these proposals by these companies to a necessary high degree of achievement. These companies also raised anxiety on the proposed changes to IFRS. Reports in the UK accounting press suggested that companies had mainly put a great effort for the transition, directors have failed to comprehend the new standards, companies had along way to go in improving consistency and comparability and there was resistance to IFRS for smaller companies. Academics at the University of Lancaster were due to study the impact of IFRS across Europe but the results would not be known until the four year project was completed! Therefore then was probably a good time to look back on the convergence process in the UK and the rest of the world..
In the UK, for organisations and groups adopting IFRS in the year 2005, new requirements in the Companies Act 1985 were effected in respect of companies’ financial years which began on or after 1 January 2005. The amended legislation gave individual companies and groups a choice between preparing accounts under UK GAAP and IFRS. Mother companies whose shares were fully listed and who were obliged to prepare consolidated accounts, had to adopt IFRS for 2005. For financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2005, all UK companies have had the option to adopt IFRS as a choice to UK accounting standards. This includes small and medium sized entities as well as big unlisted business organisation. For unlisted companies, the first choice between UK indigenous and IFRS was likely to wait a intentional option for a number of years.
- 1 Opposition to International Financial reporting standards
- 2 Positive theory
- 3 Normative theory
- 4 References
Opposition to International Financial reporting standards
Recently in the United Kingdom, a cross-party faction of MPs called the International Financial Reporting Standard 8 “completely undesirable” and launched a debate in resistance to the standard. IFRS 8 addresses the coverage of operating segments by worldwide corporations. Led by the Labour MP Austin Mitchell, the group said that IFRS 8 gives company directors too a great deal alternatives about what they reveal and the way they do it.
The motion claimed that IFRS 8 eliminates earlier requests for geographical revelation and allows unlike accounting rules to be useful to segment information from that used in the rest of a company’s fiscal statements. Both the government and the European Commission were urged by the motion to carry out their own assessment of the standard. Lately, the European assembly stunned many by proposing a motion that would compel the European Commission to alter its plans to approve IFRS 8. The intrusion by the European legislature in the subject is broadly perceived as an extensive setback to the IASB. This actually shows how much.
There a number of issues arising from the adoption of these standards in the Asian continent southern of Australia. In a submission to the IAS board and the AAS Board there was issued a comment on the IFRS that were proposed for small and medium enterprises. These were as a result of the CPA’s findings on this topic. That CPA had given support to the publication rather as separate volume rather than thee added sections to the current standards. Resistance to the heading of the standard was also expressed in the compliance.
It was recommended it be altered to IFRS for personal entities. Because the region is of diverse cultural backgrounds, problems of translation were encountered for the indigenous businesses to fully adopt these standards. Although there is an optional translational project for these standards, still many languages within this locality were not under consideration by the standards body for translation the specific languages. This posed a major issue to business companies in this region that have not adopted the English language. Another issue that arose from the implementation of the standards is the issue of the lack of understanding of the usage of thee standards.
For the management to fully adjust to these standards then there should be a thorough teaching on the usage of the standards or else these standards will just be read and as a result be misunderstood, misinterpreted and therefore applied wrongly. This is because the material that this body comes up with is of large volumes and therefore puts some pressure on the available resources of these companies to the respective accounting standards group that puts them down. Another very prominent problem that emerged in this region is the application of these standards to small and average enterprises because it is such a complex way of reporting for these small enterprises to adopt.